China Bars Olympian and Darfur Activist from Attending Summer Games (by Elizabeth Palmberg)
Looks like Joey Cheek -- a winter Olympics medalist who co-founded the organization Team Darfur to protest the genocide incited by the regime in Khartoum -- will not be going to Beijing in support of the Team Darfur athletes about to compete in the Olympics. China, which buys Sudan's oil and often runs interference for the Khartoum regime in the U.N. Security Council, has revoked Cheek's visa and told him to stay out.
But, to paraphrase Matthew 15, it's not what goes into your body politic that gets you in trouble. It's the things that come out, like wickedness, murder, and lies. And China is not doing so well in those departments: A study released this week details how China, thirsty for Sudanese oil, has provided more than 90 percent of the small arms Khartoum bought between 2004 and 2006, along with aircraft and trucks -- many of which were directly used by the government and government-backed militias to commit genocide in Darfur.
In fact, China has become the arms dealer of choice for regimes like those of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the junta that rules Myanmar (not to mention armed factions in Congo's catastrophic civil war). And there is evidence that China has violated the current U.N. embargo on supplying military weapons or training that would be used in Darfur.
And, as a just-released report by the Enough Project points out, these behaviors are counter not just to morality, but also to China's own long-term interests; the people who will throw out Mugabe soon, and the tyrants of Khartoum and Myanmar eventually, will not look with favor on China's record of rewarding their tormentors.
The Olympics should be a time for people to be inspired. And we can be inspired -- for example, by Sudanese-American Olympic athelete Lopez Lomong, a runner who has been selected by the U.S. Olympic team captains to carry the American flag in the opening ceremony today. Lomong has said how honored he feels to be chosen -- and how he's joined Team Darfur because "As athletes, we need to send the message to the [Khartoum] government not to kill or bomb and to China to stop because those guns are not to defend the country, but to kill innocent people." Amen to that!
Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor of Sojourners.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Gotta agree with Big Guy on this one. Protest the IOC all you want. You can protest Starbucks too, since they've been in Beijing for years now, making money hand over fist. Protest at the White House, since we work with China as much as we can.
But to whine that you cannot stage a protest in a land with no freedom of speech; a land that already censors everything their people read, see and hear -- why that's just mean. Do you not think the average Chinese person sitting in the stands will not look at the protester and say, "Had a relative who disappeared for doing less than that."
Posted by: frankie | August 8, 2008 4:45 PM
Is anyone surprised that the Chinese government yanked his visa and didn't allow him to come? The Olympics are supposed to rise above politics, but we all know they don't anymore...if indeed they really ever did.
However it actually might be good for China in the long run to have had the events there this year. It is hard to totally ignore the billions of folks that are there.
Posted by: pagansister | August 9, 2008 12:15 PM
"Yes - communism is wrong and has failed all over the world. But when looking at scripture...'what some did for evil - God made it honor Him' Communism has broken down the extended family structure that was China culture for centuries. If you wanted to talk to a person in the family - you had to talk to the elder of the family first. By breaking down that paradyme - one can talk to anyone these days in China. (although the communist are trying to control that) The church 'under-ground' is growing in China today like it never has before."
How nice to here a person very knowlegable about China comment on the post. Thank you Big Guy!!
Posted by: Jade | August 9, 2008 12:18 PM
Hmmm.
". . .one can talk to anyone these days in China."
So, you and I can carry our Bibles, walk into the center of Tienanmen Square, and begin to preach, preach until we are tired, and then come back the next day and preach again? I doubt it.
As for being able to "talk to anyone," I would have liked to be able to have a few words with the kids that the government massacred in that square for trying to 'talk,' just a few years ago.
I trust the Chinese government to "open up" as far as I can throw a grand piano.
Posted by: joekc | August 9, 2008 3:58 PM
I hope Lomong and Cheek can always remember the country who supplied weapons to Sudan rebel in 1996 that started the civil war in the first place.
Yes, that is CIA and the United States.
Posted by: Steve Rose | August 9, 2008 5:12 PM
Steve, you are right, the US is "good" at that kind of thing. However, the difference is - - and it is a big, big difference - - we in the US can speak openly and disagree with our government when the government does it, we can write letters and preach in squares, and tanks don't run over us.
I hope those Sudanese-American athletes remember that, too. And I wish that all of Sudan could now be enjoying the liberties, however incomplete, that the Sudanese - American athletes are enjoying, here in this terribly imperfect, but amazingly free, country.
Posted by: joekc | August 9, 2008 6:22 PM
joekc, with our country's Patriot Act and subsequent legalities, you need to be more careful than you realize. If you are deemed a "threat", many of your rights can be set aside.
China has come quite a ways towards more freedoms for its people since Tinanmen Square, thankfully, though it does have quite a ways still to go. The past almost thirty years (more than a "few years ago". It happened in 1989.), has brought much more openess with full tilt capitalism, along with the old remnants communism. "Openness" is all a relative thing, though. And I have to wonder if major arms dealing is more a part of the capitalism package.
Rob Gifford's book, published in 2007, is quite informative, by the way. It's titled, "China Road: A Journey into the Future of a Rising Power"
Posted by: janible | August 9, 2008 7:04 PM
I am surprised to hear so many on this blog speaking critically of China, which represents the ultimate end of most of the ideals expressed by the Left.
I am thankful that so many of you at least agree that collectivism and expansion of government power is evil and leads to the worst imaginable corruption and inhumanity.
Posted by: Bradley | August 11, 2008 11:05 AM
Bradley: "I am surprised to hear so many on this blog speaking critically of China, which represents the ultimate end of most of the ideals expressed by the Left."
There are many different kinds of Leftists. Your surprise suggests a real ignorance of Leftist political ideology. You might find a decent reference work--the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences is a good one--and reference "Christian socialism" sometime.
Posted by: carl copas | August 11, 2008 12:45 PM
Uh, Bradley, what represents the ultimate end of most of the ideals expressed by the Right? The kingdom of Heaven? The garden of Eden? Walden Two?
What a dumb thing to write. Hopefully we can get back to topic and not indulge this too much further.
Posted by: I and I | August 11, 2008 2:43 PM
Carl, I truly appreciate your genuine concern for my education. Sadly, I am all too familiar with "Leftist political ideology" which is why I am so opposed to it.
I and I, I know you were asking rhetorically, but your question deserves a response. No. The ideas of the Right do not lead ultimately to "The Kingdom of Heaven."
The ideas of the Right recognize that man is fallen and his nature is sinful and therefore, a system of government and laws are necessary to maintain order. At the same time, they recognize that man is created in the image of God and each human life is valuable and man is meant to be an intelligent and creative being. They see excessive restrictions on man's freedom to work and create as being immoral.
If today, somehow all opposition were removed and the ideals of the Right were implemented, would it lead to "Heaven on earth?" Absolutely not. There will be no heaven on Earth until Christ returns.
However, I can assure you that if the ideals of the Left were implemented, the result would most certainly be Hell on earth.
Marxism has always promised a utopia and has instead delivered the greatest poverty, the greatest injustice, the greatest restrictions on humanity, the greatest pollution of the environment, the greatest limitation of freedom and essentially, the enslavement of entire nations. U.S.S.R., North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, China, how many more examples do we need?
Posted by: Bradley | August 11, 2008 4:28 PM
"Sadly, I am all too familiar with 'Leftist political ideology.'"
Not if you don't understand that there is such a thing as non-Marxist leftism and such a thing as non-collectivist leftism. But, then, if you did understand, it would be much harder to caricature leftism the way you do in your post on China and "the ultimate end of most of the ideals expressed by the Left." Much easier to argue against a simplistic cartoon than complexity.
Posted by: carl copas | August 11, 2008 4:41 PM
It was actually Karl Marx who said, "I am not a Marxist."
Carl, I take it very personally when you accuse me of arguing "against a simplistic cartoon." I hate that type of debate and I make a point never to engage in it as it is the tactic of intellectually bankrupt philosophy. I was forced to endure it from my professors all the way through college.
Ideas have consequences. That is my point. I do not mean that because you are a leftist, you are Chairman Mao. That is not at all my position. What I am saying is that it is not enough to have good intentions. We must also be correct about the consequences of our ideas.
I understand that YOU would not be the one to enslave a population. However, as you place more authority in the hands of the government (through GOOD intentions, not evil ones) it sets the stage for a power-crazed leader to abuse that power.
A relative of mine was in Cuba during the Revolution. His family was supportive of Castro early on because what he said sounded good and they believed that he was going to help the poor. In the end, his family had to take advantage of an opportunity for him to escape, but the rest of his family was left behind.
His family would never have supported the imprisonment, torture and murder of political prisoners. They would never have supported the confiscation of all private property by the government which led to the poverty of so many. They would never have supported widespread repression, but they did. It was not that they set out to install a tyrant, but rather, the ideas Castro espoused all had natural consequences.
Posted by: Bradley | August 11, 2008 5:17 PM
Bradley,
re-read my posts. You've not yet addressed them.
You continue to conflate all leftism with the Maoist/Castro variety. I'm sorry but so long as you do that you are presenting a cartoonish, caricatured version of leftism.
It is the same as if I equated everyone
on the right with Timothy McVeigh or Adolf Hitler or the John Birch Society or for that matter Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Posted by: carl copas | August 11, 2008 5:35 PM
Carl,
I am sorry if reality appears "cartoonish" to you. Facts are facts. As government expands, liberty contracts. Expanding government control over the citizenry, regardless of "intentions" inevitably leads to the "Maoist/Castro variety" of Leftism.
Incidentally, McVeigh's crimes were punished under the philosophy of the Right. Hitler is a prime example of a modern Leftist (Big-government, socialism, government control over industry, etc..) I am not sure how the John Birch Society or Joe McCarthy equate to Mao and Castro, but I'm pretty sure neither of them murdered 100 Million people last century.
Posted by: Bradley | August 11, 2008 6:55 PM
Bradley,
if you want to look for non-marxist leftists you could consider a country like Australia. We are by and large a socialist democracy where we believe that we ought to be looking after and out for each other. So we have universal health care and universal education and a whole host of social supports provided by government. Most everyone contributes to these and no-one seems to resent that.
Even our conservatives are leftists by US standards, which is kind of funny. I supect that internationally you'd find more countries like Autralia than like the US. (which may be why Barack is so popular overseas - to us he is no more liberal than our conservatives).
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | August 11, 2008 7:13 PM
Bradley, we're talking past one another. You seem to think that all forms of leftism automatically and inherently involve a state Leviathan. That's not the case.
"Incidentally, McVeigh's crimes were punished under the philosophy of the Right."
Liberals and leftists don't support against murder? Hmmmmmmm
"Hitler is a prime example of a modern Leftist (Big-government, socialism, government control over industry, etc..)"
That's an old argument. Partly it involves a misunderstanding of the term "national socialism." Hitler would roll over in his grade if he knew you lumped him in with the Soviet Union--he hated communists and democratics socialists because they emphasize the class interests as opposed to national racial ones.
Partly it involves the mistaken belief that only leftwing governments prohibit the so-called "free market" economies. Look up "mercantilism"; Adam Smith attacked it in Wealth of Nations. It was the economic policy of every monarchy in Europe in the 18th century, and you can hardly accuse the monarchies of being leftist.
Now, if you want to use a category like Hannah Arendt's "totalitarian" to cover both Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia, that's a different story.
Posted by: carl copas | August 11, 2008 7:25 PM
Trent,
You said, "I supect that internationally you'd find more countries like Autralia than like the US." I whole-heartedly agree, which is yet another reason that I am an American Conservative. America is the only nation of it's kind. Other systems which place less value on the individual, his freedom and his property do not appeal to me. If one wishes to live in a country like Australia, there are several choices. But, it one wishes to live in the most free nation on Earth, there is only one choice.
Carl, we just disagree. I doubt that you are interested, but in case you wonder where I'm coming from on Germany, one of the best books, not just on the Nazis, but on economics in general is "The Road To Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. Hayek was an Austrian economist who fled and barely escaped the German onslaught. His book is about what he witnessed there as well as the troubling trends in both the United States and Great Britain.
Posted by: Bradley | August 11, 2008 9:28 PM
Going back to the topic, China's longstanding philosophy on foreign relations is to not interfere with other countries' internal affairs. If they were consistent on this, it would be one thing, but this article shows they are not. I didn't realize that China DIRECTLY supplied arms to Khartoum.
There is no such thing as neutral arms deals, and I do wish that Chinese would hold their government acountable for these actions. However, when I bring it up to the Chinese I know, many become defensive and say Westerners are trying to mar their country's moment of glory. But more importantly, the more astute of them say that the U.S. has done the same thing in arming the Muhajideen, Saddam's government, the Contras, the El Salvador regime, the Colombia regime, etc., and therefore Americans as a group and as a country have no moral authority to criticize China. And sadly, they are right.
Posted by: I and I | August 12, 2008 10:03 AM
Bradley, I've read Hayek and was not convinced; Jacques Ellul and Ivan Illich are far more persuasive.
But as I and I tactfully hints, we're roaming far afield.
It's been fun. God bless you.
Posted by: carl copas | August 12, 2008 10:46 AM
Bradley: Hitler a prime example of a Modern Leftist?
It seems to me he gained power largely through the support of the Right which feared communism more than anything else. That support made it possible for him to control most everything.
Posted by: George, Jr. | August 12, 2008 9:26 PM
OK - it is all the news about journalists being sent home from China. Now this has happened all the time and with no fan fair. Now that there is this huge spot light on Beijing - everyone is finding out what goes and what doesn't go on in China. This would have never happened if the Olympics were not there. It is now coming out that that China has underaged girls on their gymnastics team - like that has not happened before. Only this time the team is well known and they will slip up sometime in the future about their ages and then the world will know.
I personally would not have encouraged the IOC to give the Olympics to Beijing. But with this big of a light on them now - they will not be able to be so secretive as they have been before. It may turn out to be the best thing to bring China into the 21st century with the rest of the world.
There are some wonderful things happeneing too. The first time Russia did not Medal in Womens Gymnastics - WOW. The US mens gymnastics getting a metal even with two alternates - too cool. Swimming - GOLD - GOLD - GOLD and World Records being broken all the time.
God is Good - All the Time
.
Posted by: big guy | August 13, 2008 10:28 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?